Its like the famous logic riddle…..
A traveller is lost, gets to a fork in road where two identical twin brothers live, only one of whom is famous for being a compulsive liar.
So what is the one question the traveller should ask the either brother to ensure he can determine the correct road?
The answer is…..”if you were your brother which road would you advise me to take?”
So you know the response will be incorrect and that you need to do the opposite.
The moral is…. if you know something about the quality and reliability of information you are given then you are able to deal with it. However we are only now learning that vast amounts of information available from established media sources is incorrect or at best distorted as a result of either the omission of information or opinion dressed up as facts or,simply incorrect information.
Censorship has its uses, for example TV and movie content vi sa vi public decency laws etc. this is done with the consent of the public in plain sight and for good reason.
On the other hand if you are given to understand for example that Twitter is a simple peer to peer platform or that FB is simply a bulletin board, but it later transpires that actually they are not performing these roles, then users have effectively been deceived and mislead. In that case, especially if the removal and blockage of content has a political dimension, such censorship takes on different dimensions entirely.
Firstly because it is covert and because it is politically motivated, it is subverting democracy and contrary to fundamental free speech.
Another field day for the American legal profession…..at least they have plenty of good evidence!
Angles on History 